In this article, we delve into another creed which is at the root of Austrian economics and modern Libertarianism: Satanism.

The obscure hero of Libertarianism: Bernard de Mandeville
Born in Rotterdam in 1670, Bernard de Mandeville came to England in the wake of William of Orange’s accession to the throne. A doctor by profession, Mandeville became better-known as a satirist. More importantly, Mandeville was also a Satanist, linked with the Blasters and Hell-Fire Clubs of 18th-century England.

Although Mandeville’s name has been all but erased from contemporary mainstream economical discourse, many free-market thinkers lavish glowing praise on his insights.

In a lecture delivered at the British Academy in 1966, Friedrich von Hayek extolled Mandeville as a “master mind” and “great psychologist” whose theories anticipated those of David Hume, Adam Smith, and Charles Darwin, and praised his poem The Fable of the Bees as a “remarkable” work.

According to Hayek, it is through the work of Carl Menger, the founder of the Austrian School, that Mandeville’s ideas “returned to economic theory” by way of 19th-century German historian Friedrich von Savigny.

Ludwig von Mises also paid tribute to Mandeville in his Theory and History, observing that

“He [Mandeville] pointed out that self-interest and the desire for material well-being, commonly stigmatized as vices, are in fact the incentives whose operation makes for welfare, prosperity, and civilization.”

Even John Maynard Keynes, surely not an Austrian, recognized Mandeville as one of his foremost precursors in The General Theory of Employment and Money.

These days, Austrian economist Gary North introduces The Fable of the Bees on his website as“the most important poem in the last 300 years”.

But what is so special about the Fable of the Bees that this fairly obscure poem, and his author, could have inspired such eulogies from Hayek, Mises, and Keynes?

In his writings, Mandeville argues that liberty represents man’s uninhibited pursuit of his natural, evil instincts, and that, rather than being evil, selfishness and licentiousness lead to prosperity.

According to Mandeville, evil is “the grand principle that makes us social creatures, the solid basis, the life and support of all trade and employment without exception”.

Adam Smith, influenced by Mandeville, came to the conclusion that individual self-interest is the pillar of a prosperous society. Hayek and Mises went further and railed against altruism and solidarity as hindrances to a society’s economic success.

Of course, Smith is right to identify the added value brought by the division of labor and to point out that producers and sellers are primarily motivated by self-interest. But that does not mean that self-interest should be hailed as the most fundamental principle of civilization. To assert this is plain evil.

Mandeville also claimed that inequality generated talent and art, and that a nation’s wealth was predicated on the maintenance of an underclass of poorly educated laborers.

Following in Mandeville’s hoof steps, Mises defended inequality, emphasizing that “men are born unequal and that it is precisely their inequality that generates social cooperation and civilization.”

The “right to allow your child to die”
To his credit, anarcho-capitalist Murray Rothbard distanced himself from Mandeville’s ideology. However, the same Rothbard advocated for parents to have “a legal right not to feed [their] child, i.e., to allow it to die”, and for the emergence of a “free market in children”.

Since Rothbard’s system denies that humans may have moral obligations to each other, he ends up with a philosophy that rejects outright aggression (the “non-aggression principle”) but allows outright neglect, even to the point of causing death.

This is the evil outcome of taking the libertarian ethics to their logical extreme. Clearly, the “non-aggression principle” is necessary but not sufficient to design a just and humane society.

Satanic ideologies in modern Libertarianism
Below are three well-known quotes, one from a famous Satanist, one from a prominent Libertarian author, and one from a leading Austrian economist.

Alastair Crowley’s Law of Thelema reads thusly:
“Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law”.

Ayn Rand’s literary character Howard Roark proclaims in The Fountainhead:
“Man’s first duty is to himself. His moral law is never to place his prime goal within the persons of others. His moral obligation is to do what he wishes, provided his wish does not depend primarily upon other men.”

Finally, a passage from Mises, who admired Rand’s elitist stance:
“The ultimate end of action is always the satisfaction of some desires of the acting man. Since nobody is in a position to substitute his own value judgments for those of the acting individual, it is vain to pass judgment on other people’s aims and volitions.” (Human Action)

Beyond differences in wording, and even though Mises’s version is more nuanced than Crowley’s or Rand’s in-your-face statements, these three extracts are essentially saying the same thing.

Let that sink in for a while.

Now, it is one thing to point to similarities between Satanism and Libertarianism. But, as we have seen with the Fable of the Bees, Satanist propaganda is actually at the core of the Libertarian doctrine and of Austrian economics.

The Satanic-Libertarian connection is very much alive today. Libertarian candidate Ron Paul, a self-avowed Rand admirer, may strike the right chord on many topics, but he has been linked to the Illuminati and has been seen displaying Satanic hand signs.

The Satanic dialectic
The Austrian School is not the only economic school infected with Satanism, far from it. Like Hayek, Keynes was a member of the infamous Fabian Society. He was also known as a child molester. Karl Marx was himself a Satanist.

In fact, Socialism, Zionism, and Satanism were originally joined at the hip: 19th-century Jewish activist Moses Hess, an influential precursor of modern Zionism, was also an early proponent of socialism and a collaborator of Marx. It was Hess who initiated Marx and Engels into Satanism.

The end goal of all these ideologies is domination by a transnational, oligarchic, Satanic, Illuminati elite. Marxism and Austrianism both oppose nationalism and support free trade.

“The fight between Capitalism and Communism over the inheritance of the beseeched blood aristocracy is a fratricidal war of the victorious brain aristocracy, a fight between individualistic and socialist, egoist and altruist, heathen and Christian spirit.

The general staff of both parties is recruited from Europe’s spiritual leader race [Führerrasse] the Jews.”

Rising above the Illuminati dialectic
To be sure, Austrian economics and Libertarianism have introduced useful concepts in both ethics and modern economic theory. The same can be said about Keynes and Marx. Illuminati ideologies always contain some savory morsels of truth, in order to make the Satanic deception more palatable.

Our challenge, in rising above this Illuminati dialectic, is to chew on these nuggets of wisdom, and to spit out the evil lies and half-truths that defile them.

In the end, the real war waged by the Illuminati is a spiritual one. It is not merely about which monetary system is conducive to prosperity or which economic model is optimal. It is not solely about which political system is superior. It is, at heart, a battle for our souls.

There is some good thinking here, but much of it is obscured by an obvious blind spot. Namely, Christianity and Judaism were founded as states, not religions. This blind spot leads to some unnecessary and unfortunate rhetoric against the Jewish creed.

The religious teachings of both states are intended to control their “citizens,” and the concept of “satanism” is merely meant to portray the enemy of the state as evil incarnate.

The real enemy here is usury, and that enemy was alive and well in both ancient Judaism and ancient Christianity. Ancient Jewish leadership masked usury as “exchange rates” of the money-changers. Ancient Christian leadership masked usury as tithes and other payments. The point of both practices was to extract rent, to make money from nothing but the power of their will.

Bernard de Mandeville was certainly a pioneer in justifying usury as usury, but he was hardly “satanic.” He was just looking for a way to bring the Money Power’s preferred means of subjugation out into the open as a good and just thing. And don’t doubt for a second that the Vatican was and is a member of the Money Power.

Whether we’re Jewish or Christian or Enlightened rationalists, the vast majority of us are at the mercy of the Money Power, which both predates and permeates Judaism, Christianity and Rationalism.

I would argue that there are a lot more evils involved than usury. The Mosaic laws are neither capitalist nor communist, as we are told not to steal, but also to look after the orphan and the widow. Dividing people in to two camps is a prerequisite for a war, which is what these clever people have done – divided us into two secular camps, the idea of God being removed from both. “So would you like a blue one or a red one?” – classic closer in a salesman’s pitch – two options, neither of which we originally wanted.

I wonder, how many books by Rothbard have you read? I’m going to take a wild guess and say zero.

Rothbard never said anywhere that humans have no moral obligations to one another. He simply makes the point that personal morality is distinct from political ethics.

Via reason, Rothbard and many others think we can establish legal/political principles. The primary principle for political ethics, libertarians believe, is that of non aggression, that’s where that comes from.

As far as letting children starve, Rothbard was simply following the logical implications of the NAP, but other libertarians, including myself, have formulated it differently. It’s open for discussion even among our own circles.

Bottom line is he was NOT advocating anything whatsoever. His point was, albeit incorrect in my eyes, that nobody has a right to enslave anyone or to force them to care for another person, that includes parents.

Rothbard asked when the cut off point was? Can a 30 year old force his parents to care for him/her? Sometimes I think he coulda been more tactful, but if you actually READ his stuff, his biography, others’ thoughts about the man, you find he was a sweet, kind human being.

But hey, can’t expect someone to actually read more than a few disparate, out-of-context quotes about someone before they make a bunch of claims about them….

“No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main… Any man’s death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.”

- John Donne (1572-1631), Meditation XVII

Search

Follow via Email

Enter your email address to follow The Daily Knell and receive notifications of new posts by email.